Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/21/25 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite an apparatus with structural limitations and material worked upon by the apparatus. While there is nothing wrong with claiming the material worked upon, such limitations are only given weight to the extent that they limit the structure of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2115. See In re Rishoi (94 USPQ 71), In re Smith (3 USPQ 315), and In re Young (25 USPQ 69).
In Rishoi, a film of liquid was claimed as part of an apparatus, it being clear that the liquid film is only present during use of the apparatus. It was held that the liquid film is not a structural limitation and therefore cannot impart patentability to those claims which are otherwise unpatentable. It was further stated that there is no patentable combination between a device and the material upon which it works.
In Smith, a particular web material having an extra length of carbons was claimed as part of an apparatus. The web material is worked upon by the apparatus. The court considered the possibility of combining the specified web with an old machine to provide a patentable combination, but it was held that a person may not patent a combination of a device and material upon which the device works, nor limit other persons from the use of similar material by claiming a device patent.
In Young, a concrete structure upon which an apparatus works was claimed as part of the apparatus. It was held that the inclusion of the material worked upon may not lend patentability to the apparatus.
In view of the cited cases and MPEP 2115, the claimed material worked upon has only been given weight to the extent that such limitations indicate structural limitations of the claimed apparatus.
Claim Objections
Claims 25-26 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 25, “comprise” should be replaced with “comprises”. In claim 26, “comprises g a” should be amended to remove “g”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 17-20 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Allen et al. (US 6458309).
**The fibrous preform having a complex shape, the fluid, the complex part, and any structure (eg pipes/valve etc) associated with the complex part are considered material to be worked upon. See above.**
As to claim 1, Allen discloses a tool for preforming a fibrous preform, the tool comprising: first membrane 48 having an inflated state and a deflated state (fig 2, 3 9, 10 C8, L31-41, C4, L 10-29), said fibrous preform can be placed on an external surface of the first membrane in the inflated state, wherein said first membrane having a predetermined shape in the inflated state which corresponds to a part having a complex shape (fig 1, 4), a second membrane 40 attached to the first membrane via an attachment system (sealant tape C7, L34) forming a fluid-tight internal cavity between the first membrane and the second membranes (C7, L30-54, C4, L 10-29,figs 2-4, 10), the fibrous preform capable of being arranged in the internal cavity, the internal cavity is delimited by an external surface of the first membrane and an internal surface of the second membrane (see annotated fig below); and a device for evacuating a fluid injected into the internal cavity between the first membrane and the second membrane (see annotated fig below fig 3 – C7, L30-54, C8, L42-57 – vacuum bag exhausted) wherein the shape of the preform conforms to the part having the complex shape once the injected fluid is fully evacuated (figs 1-3, 4, 6, 10, C6, L18 – C9, L47), the first and second membranes are releasably attached to each other (C7, L30-40) and the attachment system is installed along the peripheral edges (fig 10) of the first membrane and second membrane (figs 1-3, 4, 6, 10, C6, L18 – C9, L47).
.
PNG
media_image1.png
328
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, figs 2-3 disclose the first membrane comprises a wall which is closed so as to form a chamber with the internal volume.
As to claim 6, Allen discloses the fluid-tight attachment system comprises sealing elements (sealant tape – C7, L30-40).
As to claim 17-20, the examiner notes, as discussed above, that the complex part ids not part of the apparatus.
Nonetheless, as to claim 17, the device of Allen is capable of making the complex part a single part of the composite (figs 1).
As to claim 18, the device of Allen is capable of making a substantially S-shaped composite part (figs 1, 4).
As to claim 19 and 20, the apparatus of Allen is capable of making a complex part comprising a main pipe and a second pipe, and the secondary pipe having a first end and a second end which opens into the main pipe (figs 1, 4) wherein the main pipe has an opening forming a variable discharge valve that opens into a secondary duct (figs 1-4).
As to claims 22-23, Allen discloses the first membrane being arranged on a flat support 32 (figs 2-4).
As to claim 24, the claim is optional since use of the term “may” does not expressly require the presence of a fluid-tight zip. Thus, Allen meets the claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blackburn et al. (US 2014/0175709).
As to claims 3-4, Allen does not disclose the first membrane is an elastic silicone. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Allen such that the first membrane is an elastic silicone material as taught by Blackburn (para 13) as such has a reasonable expectation of success and provides an elongation failure above 100%.
As to claim 7, Blackburn discloses the evacuation device comprises a vacuum pump (para 13).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen, in view of Simpson et al. (US 2005/0211843).
As to claim 21, Allen discloses a tool for preforming a fibrous preform, the tool comprising an inflatable first membrane which receives the fibrous preform on an external surface of the first membrane, the first membrane having an internal volume and occupying an inflated state and a deflated state, wherein the first membrane comprises a wall which is closed so as to form a chamber, the wall of the first membrane comprises an inlet orifice 50 for supplying air to the chamber, - a second membrane intended to attach to the first membrane via an attachment system and so as to form a fluid-tight internal cavity between the first and the second membranes, the internal cavity is delimited by an external surface of the first membrane and the an internal surface of the second membrane, an evacuating device for evacuating fluid injected into the internal cavity between the first and second membranes (see discussion of claims 1-2 above for citations).
Allen does not disclose, a suction outlet connected to the evacuating device, and an inflation system connected to a source of compressed air and to a nozzle, said nozzle being coupled to the inlet orifice of the first membrane.
Simpson discloses a membrane 216 (para 58, figs 1-2), said membrane comprising an inlet orifice (opening in plate 232 - fig 2) for supplying air to the chamber a suction outlet orifice (opening through which vacuum is pulled via, fig 2, para 62) connected to an evacuation device 224; an inflation system of the first membrane connected to a source of compressed air 236 and to a nozzle 240, said nozzle being coupled to the inlet orifice of the first membrane (fig 2, para 58-69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the tool of Allen such that said tool comprises a suction outlet connected to the evacuating device, and an inflation system connected to a source of compressed air and to a nozzle, said nozzle being coupled to the inlet orifice of the first membrane. as taught by Simpson above as such a modification enables air pockets between layers to be removed (para 69).
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Louie et al. (US 2015/0107775).
As to claims 25-25, Allen does not disclose the attachment system comprises clip-on elements between the first and second membranes, wherein one of the first and second membranes comprises a groove and the other of the first and second membrane comprises a bracket such that the bracket and groove fit together to form a seal.
Louie discloses first and second membrane with an attachment system (figs 6-7) comprising clip-on elements 98, 100 between the first and second membranes, wherein one of the first and second membranes comprises a groove 94 and the other of the first and second membrane comprises a bracket 86 such that the bracket and groove fit together to form a seal (figs 3-7, para 5-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the tool of Allen such that the attachment system comprises clip-on elements between the first and second membranes, wherein one of the first and second membranes comprises a groove and the other of the first and second membrane comprises a bracket such that the bracket and groove fit together to form a seal as taught by Louie above as such enables the membrane to be useable and the seal to be appropriate for a variety of sealing operations (para 43).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/7/25 have been fully considered but they are either not persuasive or moot in light of the new grounds of rejection. Note that although the rejection relies on the same references as previously used, the grounds of rejection have somewhat changed. Applicant asserts the internal cavity is formed with the internal surface of membrane 40 and external surface of mandrel 36/42. This argument is not persuasive. The internal cavity is delimited by an external surface of the first membrane and an internal surface of the second membrane as detailed in the discussion of claim 1 above. Applicant asserts that bag 40 is only sealed to ends of tube bag 48 and thus is not secured along the peripheral edge of the bag 48. This is not correct, as fig 10 and discussion of said figure clearly discloses otherwise. With respect to the rejection of claim 21, said arguments directed at Allen are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection detailed above.
Applicant’s discussion of Simpson does not substantively rebut the examiner’s proposed modification. The inlet and outlet are both in fluid communication with the internal cavity. Simpson need not disclose the inlet and outlet connected to different membranes as Allen discloses such. Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually and in a vacuum of each other as a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is a consideration relating to the combined teachings of the references (and not each reference in a vacuum of the others)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Holland (US 4280804), directed to zip-seals for vacuum bags. .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746